Valery Pipin wrote: > William Stein wrote: > <<sorry, it's too long> > > >>> I've no idea how the Sage group would feel about switches lisps. Given >>> they have just recently done that (I forgot what was used before), there >>> might not be too much enthusiasm for it. >> Since you have no idea, perhaps I should clarify: There is no way in hell >> we are switching from ECL to anything else. >> >> ECL is massively better than CLISP, and is also the *only* other lisp that >> is currently supported and builds 100% from source code. Both CMUCL and >> SBCL are immediately ruled out just because of that reason. This is one of >> the DoD requirements for Sage -- they absolutely will never consider using >> CMUCL or SBCL (I have asked). > Too bad :-). Sbcl builds from the source on the most Unixes at least >> Why do you think cmucl or sbcl would give high performance. Are you >> >>> suggesting ecl would give lower performance? > It is certainly true. Should I write a paper for sage journal about it? > > best wishes > Valery
I will certainly try Sbcl, even if it can't be used in Sage. If SBcl builds on Solaris and gets the right results, it would tend to suggest the bug is in ECL, though one would have to admit that is not 100% proof (it could be a gcc bug, which only ECL causes). I will do this, later today (UK time) Dave --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
